Nonviolence, Muslim Style: From Ghaffar Khan to Tahrir Square

4 Aug

August 4, 2011

Religion Dispatches

“Islam” Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal
Praeger (2011)

When the mass nonviolent movements that brought down longtime U.S.-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt this year captured the world’s attention, The Progressive’s managing editor Amitabh Pal joked that it made his new book, “Islam” Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today, both “more topical and dated at the same time.”

While many books will no doubt be written about the momentous events that are unfolding in the Middle East, many of them will doubtless leave out the prehistory. By exploring the rich tradition of nonviolent resistance in the Muslim world—from Palestine and Pakistan, to Kosovo and the Maldives—Pal dispels the oft-repeated misconception that what we are witnessing in the Arab Spring is without precedent. He recently spoke with Religion Dispatches about why Islam has been so maligned in the West, what makes the religion compatible with nonviolence, and the important role that women are playing in the ongoing struggles for democracy and social justice in the Middle East.

What first made you want to write a book about nonviolence and Islam—as neither a Muslim yourself nor a scholar of the religion? 

I didn’t initially approach the subject as that of Islam but as nonviolence. When the events of September 11 happened and the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, I remembered as a young man hearing about an associate of Gandhi named Ghaffar Khan. So I thought I’d write about him. Through a series of contacts I was able to actually speak to his family in Peshawar, where they control a political party. They are not exactly living up to his ideals—they claim to, but it’s dubious. His grandson was happy to speak with me. I wrote an article about him, and that is how I got interested in Islam and nonviolence.

What was it about him that made you want to explore the subject more?

Ghaffar Khan was an incredible personality. From the 1920s through at least the 1940s, he led a movement of 100,000 Pashtuns for independence from the British and social reform, religious tolerance, and women’s rights—maybe not complete equality, but very progressive for his time.

How well known is he in Muslim world? 

I wish he were better known in the Muslim world, although some people have tried to popularize his ideas. After the partition of India, he evolved (or devolved) into becoming a Pashtun nationalist—nonviolent, I must emphasize, to the end—but that did not exactly endear him to the Pakistani authorities. Fifteen of the thirty years he spent in jail were under the Pakistani government. He was almost erased from official Pakistani history as a result, except in the Pashtun areas, where he is still known as a Pashtun nationalist, mainly. In India, rather that being seen as someone who was an amazing figure in his own right, he is seen as an adjunct of Gandhi, which sort of belittles him in my opinion. He drew his inspiration primarily from Islam, not from Gandhi.

Continue reading →

RT interview on Yemen

10 Jun

I was on RT, Russia’s 24/7 English-language news channel, today to talk about the news that the US has stepped up its covert war in Yemen in recent weeks with increased strikes by fighter jets and armed drones. Click here to watch the video.

Is there no other way in Libya?

25 Mar

March 25, 2011

Waging Nonviolence, Common Dreams, The Indypendent

One of the arguments that is being forwarded by proponents of military intervention in Libya is that Qaddafi is literally crazy and therefore cannot be reasoned with or expected to step down without force.

In an article for Tikkun, entitled “Libya: Acid Test for Nonviolence?,” Metta Center for Nonviolence president Michael Nagler, who I deeply respect and have personally learned a great deal from, makes an argument for war along these lines:

We in the nonviolence field will recognize this as a “madman with a sword” analogy. Gandhi said flatly that if a madman is raging through a village with a sword (read: assault rifle — or Glock Automatic) he who “dispatches the lunatic” will have done the community (and even the poor lunatic) a favor. Here are Gandhi’s exact words, from The Hindu, 1926:

Taking life may be a duty…. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man.

Later in the piece, he goes on to say essentially that in this “acid test” for nonviolence, nonviolence has come up short.

Our options are very thin because we have not explored more creative options than brute force, which always operates after conflict has already flared. Military intervention is now the least bad solution from the point of view of nonviolence, but it is bad. What else is left to us?

To be honest, I was very disappointed to read this. Military intervention can by definition never be a solution from the point of view of nonviolence. Killing people is not nonviolent.

It has truly been amazing that so many progressives, even in the nonviolence world, have given up on nonviolence so quickly, especially on the heels of the incredible victories for nonviolent action in Tunisia and Egypt. Can anyone argue that Libyans or the international community really exhausted every nonviolent alternative in the last few weeks?

“People try nonviolence for a week,” as Theodore Roszak says, “and when it ‘doesn’t work’ they go back to violence, which hasn’t worked for centuries.”

Continue reading →

Pro-Democracy Forces in Bahrain Face Unique Challenges

17 Mar

March 17, 2011

Waging Nonviolence, Sojourners

After a month of largely peaceful pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, the situation has taken a dramatic turn for the worse this week. On Monday, 2,000 soldiers from Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region entered Bahrain at the request of King Hamad al-Khalifa.  The king then announced a three-month state of emergency and yesterday his security forces moved on Pearl Roundabout, where the protesters have been encamped since the movement began on February 14. At least 6 people were killed and more than 1,000 were injured. The violent crackdown has continued today, with the arrest of six leading opposition figures.

The pro-democracy movement in Bahrain faces challenges that those in Egypt and Tunisia did not. The Sunni-controlled Bahraini government systematically discriminates against Shiites, who make up more than 70 percent of the country’s population. And as last week’s very insightful episode of Al Jazeera’s People & Power (above) explains, virtually no Shiites are not allowed in the police or army, and the “king brings Sunni immigrants from abroad to police the streets, giving them citizenship and housing.”

This makes dividing the loyalty of the security apparatus – which is often a key to the success of any nonviolent movement – in Bahrain far more difficult than it was in Egypt. While they are all Muslim, because of the sectarian split, Bahrainis will have a harder time appealing to the army and police on religious grounds.

Moreover, since many are brought in from other Sunni countries, the opposition can’t even appeal to them as citizens of Bahrain. This fact makes them in some ways comparable to mercenaries, in that the financial motive is likely more central to their thinking than anything else. They are totally dependent on the current regime for their livelihoods, which would potentially be jeopardized if the predominately Shiite pro-democracy movement emerges victorious.

Given this reality, and the presence now of Saudi troops in the country, the opposition may want to consider changing gears. While the police and military are always an important pillar of support to any regime, in this case it would appear to not be very vulnerable. Therefore, the pro-democracy movement may want to consider focusing on undermining other sources of the ruling family’s power. Rather than focusing on mass demonstrations to register their dissent, for example, Bahrainis could shift towards tactics – like strikes, boycotts and tax refusal – that will put economic pressure on the regime and disrupt the day-to-day functioning of the state without providing such an easy target for repression.

The Human Toll

15 Feb

March 2011 issue

Sojourners

This 9-year-old Afghan girl lost her left arm in a U.S. bombing. She now lives in a displaced persons camp outside Kabul.

In December, as the United States entered the 10th year of what President Obama called the “good war” in Afghanistan, I traveled to Kabul to take stock of the human toll of the increasingly bloody occupation.

From the moment I landed in Kabul’s airport, I noticed its distinctive smell — a unique mix of dust, smog, and burning wood. The poor air quality, I learned, is a direct result of the wars. In an attempt to quantify the damage done by air pollution, Afghan authorities recently announced that 3,000 people die every year in Kabul due to the poor air quality, making it a more effective killer of Afghans than the Taliban. War not only destroys people, but it poisons the earth itself, which leads to more deaths.

In Kabul, it’s clear that money was secured from somewhere to surround buildings on nearly every street with enormous concrete blast walls, sandbags, razor wire, and men with AK-47s — turning the city into a massive open-air prison. Someone decided that razor wire was a greater priority than paving roads, providing clean drinking water, or building a much-needed sewage system for the city. Ten years into the so-called “reconstruction” and even at a hotel that caters to internationals, electricity was spotty — going out multiple times a day, sometimes for hours at a time.

These minimal services provided by the Afghan government in the capital, in reality the only part of the country it controls, are nonexistent once you get beyond Kabul. On the U.N. Human Development Index, Afghanistan is ranked as one of the least developed countries in the world. Poverty and unemployment are endemic. One 2010 study released by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission found that up to 40 percent of the country’s 15 million children are involved in some paid work, many because war has left them without fathers. While most of these reluctant breadwinners are trying to sell packs of gum or Kleenex, one young boy took a clever approach, given most foreigners’ concerns about security. “I’ll be your bodyguard,” he told me jokingly, for a price, of course.

As difficult as these children’s lives are, they might still be considered the lucky ones. Afghanistan has the worst infant mortality rate in the world, and one out of every four Afghan children doesn’t live to see his or her fifth birthday.

More than 30 years of war, since the 1979 Soviet invasion, have left the country in a perpetual state of crisis. According to the latest figures from the United Nations, life expectancy in Afghanistan is only 44.6 years, the lowest in the world.

Continue reading →

Interview on Russia Today

8 Feb

I was on Russia Today (RT), Russia’s 24/7 English-language news channel, to discuss ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the Iraq war and the use of torture on the day that his new memoir Known and Unknown was released. Click here to watch the video.

The Tragic U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan

17 Jan

January 17, 2010

Union Daily Times, SC; Worthington Daily Globe, MN; Fayette County News, GA; Asheville Citizen-Times, NC; News Eagle, PA. A shorter version was published in the Peoria Journal Star, IL. Distributed by OtherWords and Featurewell.

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If that doesn’t accurately describe the more than nine-year-old U.S. war in Afghanistan, I don’t know what does.

The results of the surge of tens of thousands of additional troops into the “graveyard of empires” are now evident. More soldiers, humanitarian workers, and civilians were killed in 2010 than any year since the United States invaded. One tally put the dead at more than 10,000 last year alone.

At least 120,000 Afghans have also been driven from their homes due to the violence over the last year and a half. I visited Charahi Qambar in December, the largest of some 30 camps for the internally displaced around Kabul, and was horrified by the living conditions there. These refugees call simple mud huts home and lack adequate access to food, clean water, education, or work. The most vulnerable, especially the children, often die from the cold during the bitter winters.

Meanwhile, with the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan serving as one of its most effective recruiting tools, the Taliban has grown exponentially–from an estimated 7,000 in 2006 to 35,000 or 40,000 today, according to NATO.

But after the release of the December review of the war, President Obama nonetheless declared that the United States is “on track to achieve our goals.” Either the administration has deluded itself or it can’t muster the courage to tell the American public the truth.

Continue reading →

Report back from Afghanistan

16 Jan

On January 7, I spoke at this great event at All Souls Unitarian Church in New York with Kathy Kelly and Mike Ferner about our trip to Afghanistan in December.

Here is a link to an hour-long radio interview I did on The New Movement with Roy Beckham on WAZU 90.7FM in Peoria, IL, on January 12.

And the local CBS affiliate in Peoria, WMBD, also did a short segment on the evening news about my trip on January 16. While the piece was well done overall, they did attribute a couple positive lines to me about the US military helping rebuild the country and restructure the Afghan government that I clearly did not say, which is really sloppy, unethical journalism. Hope you enjoy.

Record levels of violence in Afghanistan do not equal progress

17 Dec

December 16, 2010

Waging Nonviolence, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Huffington Post, The Indypendent, Sojourners

Greetings from Afghanistan. I arrived here now almost a week ago and there is so much to share about this experience that it’s hard to know where to start. I’d like to offer a few random observations about Kabul that I’m sure will make more sense upon reflection.

I was immediately struck by the contrast between the incredible beauty of the landscape here and what humans have managed to do to this little piece of the Earth. On the flight in to Kabul International Airport, you have stunning views from the plane of the Hindu Kush mountains that surround the city.

Once you land, however, you are quickly made aware that something is terribly wrong. Rather than the usual airport scene, buzzing with tourists and commercial flights, you see UN helicopters, military aircraft and surprisingly few people.

After entering the dilapidated airport, which is tiny for Kabul’s rapidly growing population, I had to wait only several minutes before seeing my first AK-47. Little did I know how common they are in this city. Seemingly every hotel that caters to foreigners, every government building, many banks and other important building have at least one Afghan in camo with a menacing weapon guarding the entrance. Razor wire is everywhere. In many ways, the city has the feel of a prison.

The poor air quality is also immediately apparent. There is so much dust in the air that there is almost a permanent haze over the city. When you are in a car navigating the chaotic roads, it at times looks like you are driving through a cloud or thick fog, but it’s just the dust. This is dangerous for me given that I have cystic fibrosis, but it is deadly for Afghans that have to breathe this air every day. In fact, earlier this month, Afghan authorities announced that 3,000 people die in Kabul every year because of the dust and smog. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a gross underestimate.

Continue reading →

Lessons from the election

17 Dec

December 2010

Platypus Review

In a strange way, the debate over whether the American left should support the Green Movement in Iran resembles the arguments that took place in progressive circles before the 2008 presidential elections in the United States, and that reemerged in the recent midterm elections. Those in the Obama camp either believed him to be their savior, taking his every word as gospel, or, if they had a more sober political outlook, simply resorted to some version of the tired “lesser of two evils” argument. If elected, this crowd contended, Obama would at least be more open to the progressive perspective than McCain, which was reason enough to vote for him. It was argued that the threat posed by a Republican victory was so great that the various factions on the Left needed to put aside their differences until after Obama was elected. At that point, he would reveal his true progressive self, and if that did not happen, at least there would be a more reasonable partner to negotiate with in the White House, who could be pressured to move to the Left. Meanwhile, anyone who decided to critique Obama from the Left by saying that his proposed policies—which left much to be desired, to put it mildly—should have had a greater bearing on one’s behavior in the voting booth than his elocution, were seen by Obama’s supporters as traitors or idealists totally out of touch with political reality.

In the end, many on the Left begrudgingly cast their ballots for Obama even though he consistently moved to the right during the campaign—backing the massive, hugely unpopular bailout of Wall Street, withdrawing his support for a single-payer universal health care system, and calling for a larger military, with more troops in Afghanistan and more Predator drone attacks in Pakistan. The results of this compromise are now evident. Since Obama was elected he has, not surprisingly, continued down the treacherous path he campaigned on and the sense of hope and change that was ever-present during his ascent is now difficult to find. Indeed, as seen during the midterm elections last month, most leftists fell into a pattern of recrimination and resignation similar to the lead-up to the presidential election, only this time a widespread melancholy had replaced the euphoric hope of 2008.

The differences between the candidates in Iran’s presidential election last year were far starker than the differences Americans faced when voting for Obama or McCain in 2008. President Ahmadinejad is a world-class demagogue and his government has been extremely repressive, committing widespread human rights abuses and imprisoning, torturing, and killing those who voice dissent. Mir Hossein Mousavi, on the other hand, has generally advocated for greater political and social freedoms for all Iranians. Given this contrast, many argued that the Green Movement should be uncritically supported because, if nothing else, getting Mousavi in power would at least give the Iranian left some “breathing room” to organize. In turn, little tolerance has been shown by many supporters of the Green Movement for those who chose to point out the faults of Mousavi or the other presidential contenders. When it comes to economic policy, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is particularly opaque. Though 60 to 70 percent of the Iranian economy is still nationalized, there is little evidence to support the position, argued by some on the American left, that Ahmadinejad is a bulwark against the destructive forces of neoliberalism. On the contrary, as critics have documented in extensive detail, since assuming the presidency in 2005 Ahmadinejad has crushed organized labor, enthusiastically privatized state assets, and courted foreign investment.

Continue reading →

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.